• http://www.sefati.net asefati

    I just had two phone interviews with them for their office in Los Angeles \ Santa Monica. I hope I get the job they seem to be a great company to work.

  • http://www.mcjones.org/paul/ pmcjones

    Here’s an eHow article “How to Understand Algorithms”: http://www.ehow.com/how_4524483_understand-algorithms.html — the author’s specialty is “home and garden, travel and parenting articles” — I think she should have stuck with those subjects.

  • http://www.domainnoob.com DomainNoob

    BankOfElgin.com is an Enom (Demand) owned domain. In fact you can make an offer to purchase the domain at AcquireThisName.com which I believe is also a Demand company (it’s a little murky but for sure Matthew P. Polesetsky and Michael L. Blend are on both Demand’s and Acquire This Name’s incorporation filings. Acquire This Name is incorporated in Nevada http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/CorpSearch.aspx) My hunch would be that someone at the Bank of Elgin forgot to renew the domain, and then when they went to try to get it through AcquireThisName were told something like, “To be honest, I’m not sure if the registrant is motivated to sell this domain. At this time, he is only asking for solid 6 figure offers for consideration.” That’s what I was told when I tried to track down KhanAcademy.com. KhanAcademy.org is a non-profit providing online education to kids all over the world for free. That a “solid 6 figure offer” for a name whose only value derives from the good work Salman Khan is doing leads me to conclude that AcquireThisName.com serves as the cybersquatting wing of Demand Inc.
    (P.S. I have no affiliation with KhanAcademy, I was motivated to do the research after hearing a Mixergy interview with Salman Khan)

  • btabke

    I have found ehow to be as reliable (if not more) than Wikipedia for the searches I run into it. I use it quite often when some new task comes up. I think the quality of articles is better than what is generally available on the web. For every rare low quality article you can find on ehow – you can two dozen on wikipedia.

    The downside to this for me is that it re-enforces the myth that all it takes is content to win in the search engines. Sorry, I no longer believe quality content = quality rankings. That dream has been dying for quite a few years (along with everyones traffic and rankings in Google as competition makes roi on seo and unsustainable endeavor).

    What Rosenblatt and the crew have done is nothing short of genius in the SEO space. To qualify algorithmically and engineer daily content is freaking brilliant. To get it to rank and convert in the long tail is even bigger. No wonder everyone is so jealous of their success. They are the top SEO’s on the web. They are without a peer.

    Here is a great article from Wired: on Demand Media “The Answer Factory”
    http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_demandmedia

  • http://managinggreatness.com Gil Reich

    Great post, Danny. Demand isn’t unique in having Google supply most of its traffic. About.com was 80% SEO when NYT bought them. You wrote a post about how Wikipedia was 80% SEO. Joel Spolsky talked about how Stack Overflow got 85% of its traffic from Google. Most successful reference sites get most of their traffic from Google.